Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of non-Forbes billionaires (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Editors may discuss the possibility of merging on the talk page. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 21:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

List of non-Forbes billionaires
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Admits to being non-exhaustive; given how many billionaires exist, this just lists a few and isn't a good representation of the subject. Appears to have previously have been voted to merge, but nothing happened. Kansan (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. May as well be "list of billionaires" which, by the subject's limitation and the introduction to the list, may not be reliably sourced in its inclusions. I too was struck by the disclaimer that it is not exhaustive, suggesting that it is too vague to continue as a separate article. Moreover, do we really need lists of things that are defined by inclusion in one source but not another? Agent 86 (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Since when is a list being incomplete a reason to delete? Jesanj (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. This proposed deletion is silly, in my mind. The last one closed as merge. Unless I'm missing something, that means the previous consensus saw value/potential here. Therefore, one would need to make an argument as to why we should delete this information off of Wikipedia, but I don't see a rationale given for this. The Forbes list of billionaires article is simple and therefore easy to maintain. I'm not sure how to successfully structure a merged list of billionaires article. Maintaining the distinction between Forbes and non-Forbes billionaires may be a useful aid. Since when is "could be improved" a reason for deletion? Jesanj (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - A discriminate and narrowly focused list that is notable and verifiable. Passes WP:NLIST (lists of people guidelines), per many references in the article that verify content in the article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and discuss merging with Forbes list of billionaires. This should be one List of billionaires (currently a redirect page). Biophys (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per above keeps, and wp:NLIST.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect both this list, and the Forbes list of billionaires, into a single List of billionaires. Neutralitytalk 18:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename of course. The Forbes list of billionaires articles dated from 2004 to 2011, with only 2010 missing.  Those articles are for what is on a notable list.  They do not include people who are heads of state or royalty in their list, and exclude others as well.  A list of billionaires should exist for all billionaires, not just those on any one list.  Don't merge, just rename this one, and copy information over that is valid.   D r e a m Focus  08:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge per others. There's just no reason to have a list citing one reliable source, and another list citing other reliable sources.--~TPW 12:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment There are a lot of "Merge" recommendations here; however, as the nominator noted, this solution was previously proposed but never acted upon. It would be unfortunate to keep this unnecessary unencyclopedic article on the basis of yet another merge recommendation. Agent 86 (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would think merge should default to keep, not delete. The information is encyclopedic, the consensus shows (to date).  The delete rec certainly does not have consensus support above.  The only issue is one of format -- whether to keep it as a stand-alone, or as a merge.  I tend not to think the difference between the two very great; the difference between either of them and delete is much greater, however.  And, of course, AfD is not the place for cleanup.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.